Hi, O Mér, 11-01-2017 ás 11:15 -0800, JF Bastien escribiu: > e.g. I think this is great: > auto ptr = std::make_unique<Foo>(bar); > Proposed rule: if the type is obvious because it's on the line, then > auto is good. > Similarly: > auto i = static_cast<int>(j); > auto foo = make_foo(); > auto bar = something.get_bar(); // Sometimes, "bar" is obvious. > > > Range-based loops are a bit tricky. IMO containers with "simple" > types are good candidates for either: > for (const auto& v : cont) { /* don't change v */ } > for auto& v : cont) { /* change v */ } > But what's "simple"? I'd say all numeric, pointer, and string types > at least. It gets tricky for more complex types, and I'd often rather > have the type in the loop. Here's more discussion on this, including > a recommendation to use auto&& on range-based loops! I think this > gets confusing, and I'm not a huge fan of r-value references > everywhere.
I'm ok with a rule similar to this one. Br. -- Xabier Rodríguez Calvar Software Engineer IGALIA http://www.igalia.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev